AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
-
There has been an ongoing bug where club membership subscriptions have not been expiring. We have fixed this bug, and on October 7 users who do not have an active subscription will have their membership revoked, and you will be given the opportunity to renew. Please visit this post for details: https://allbuffs.com/threads/club-membership-privileges-not-being-revoked-when-yearly-subscription-ends.160161/
Thoughts on the 2018 Class So Far
- Thread starter BatBuff
- Start date
BatBuff
Well-Known Member
Here's my thoughts:
It's great that we are getting a lot of guys to jump on board early. A lot of the commits look like athletic guys. However, I want to see some 4 star guys! I know that all the Buffs that were drafted this year weren't four stars, but I still want to see the Buffs land some four stars early. What is everyone else's thoughts?
It's great that we are getting a lot of guys to jump on board early. A lot of the commits look like athletic guys. However, I want to see some 4 star guys! I know that all the Buffs that were drafted this year weren't four stars, but I still want to see the Buffs land some four stars early. What is everyone else's thoughts?
Not trying to be snarky but this thread exist in Barzil where people can speak openly and honestly without worrying about hurting feeling of those who might "drive by" the site.
Click on the support allbuffs tab on the top and then click on become a member. For $20 a year you get access to the whole site including Barzil and you don't have to deal with all the advertising on the page.
Click on the support allbuffs tab on the top and then click on become a member. For $20 a year you get access to the whole site including Barzil and you don't have to deal with all the advertising on the page.
Dorn09
Well-Known Member
I went with B+ considering this is the most recruits we have had committed at this time since ever, possibly. A few guys in there could make the jump to 4 stars with good senior years and we are still in on some really good players.
One negative is looks like we are spinning our wheels with the defensive line recruits.
One negative is looks like we are spinning our wheels with the defensive line recruits.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Fire MacIntyre
I mostly like the players we have so far and who we're in on, but I have concerns about the class. Pretty much every player looks good, but has a glaring flaw in one way or another. Not the end of the world and I'm giving the staff a lot of latitude, but I was expecting more after last season. It seems we have taken a serious step backwards with this class rather than the step forward or even a sidestep that I was hoping for.
Seeing as this class feels like a solidly average class, it gets a solidly average grade, C.
Seeing as this class feels like a solidly average class, it gets a solidly average grade, C.
Just be sure you're not comparing to last year's final class instead of last year's class as of July 3rd.
2017
Dante Sparace (2/29/16)
Jon Van Diest (2/29/16)
Jaylon Jackson (4/3/16)
Laviska Shenault (4/24/16)
Alex Fontenot (6/14/16)
Chase Newman (6/19/16)
Tyler Lytle (6/21/16)
Chris Miller (6/22/16)
Heston Paige (6/24/16)
Maurice Bell (6/27/16)
Sebastian Olver (6/28/16)
Isaiah Lewis (7/2/16)
On Rivals, that list is: One 2* (5.4), Four 3* (5.5), and Seven 3* (5.6).
This year's class so far on Rivals: Seven 3* (5.5) and Four 3* (5.6).
Also, the 2017 class is on final ranks. There's reason to think that some of the 2018 class will get bumped up. Many times a 3* 5.5 is a placeholder at Rivals for a player committed to a P5 until they do an actual evaluation. Offer lists alone would strongly suggest that ranks will be on an upward trajectory (e.g, Walker Culver is still in as a 3* 5.5).
2017
Dante Sparace (2/29/16)
Jon Van Diest (2/29/16)
Jaylon Jackson (4/3/16)
Laviska Shenault (4/24/16)
Alex Fontenot (6/14/16)
Chase Newman (6/19/16)
Tyler Lytle (6/21/16)
Chris Miller (6/22/16)
Heston Paige (6/24/16)
Maurice Bell (6/27/16)
Sebastian Olver (6/28/16)
Isaiah Lewis (7/2/16)
On Rivals, that list is: One 2* (5.4), Four 3* (5.5), and Seven 3* (5.6).
This year's class so far on Rivals: Seven 3* (5.5) and Four 3* (5.6).
Also, the 2017 class is on final ranks. There's reason to think that some of the 2018 class will get bumped up. Many times a 3* 5.5 is a placeholder at Rivals for a player committed to a P5 until they do an actual evaluation. Offer lists alone would strongly suggest that ranks will be on an upward trajectory (e.g, Walker Culver is still in as a 3* 5.5).
Jackson and Shenault were both 4-stars at that time though, which is why this class tends to have a different vibe among fans. There's also not nearly as many spots left as there were, and we don't seem to have the same amount of traction that we did with bigger recruits (Polley, etc.). Fans probably also felt better about the last class because we were looking for any reasons for positivity at the time, but now we're coming off a 10 win season and people expected to see the effects of that in the recruiting class.
But it is worth noting, we pulled off Moretti, Nixon, Lang, Edwards, and Poplawski all rather unexpectedly later in that class.
Last edited:
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
Exactly my good man. Also JVD and Lytle seemed like they could be 4 stars last year. (at least in my opinion) You state my thoughts perfectly.
This year, while there are a few players I'm excited about, I just don't feel like it's a step up coming from a 10 win season. I will say though, I trust Mac and his staff in terms of talent evaluation, and I'm happy to see early commits. It's such a 180 from some years ago where we primarily got commitments late in the game - prospects not worthy enough of scholarships until more film was out, or until we struck out on other targets. Obviously there's nothing wrong with the latter per se, but I think we all prefer early commits.
We hadn't won the Pac-12 South, played in the Pac-12 title game, and gone to the Alamo Bowl last year at this time either....
Great post. I gave it a B cuz we have so many early recruits and they look pretty good. I would like a splash player, but don't know if it's in the cards this year.
I am at a c right now. Like every kid but really want the bump that we should have gotten out of last year. We are recruiting at a higher level but I want more. Not disappointed at all but expectations are rising
Well, we got what looks like a very solid QB and some good beef up front. I'd feel better had we not lost Borghi and had some defensive blue chips committed. I'm willing to assume those commitments will be coming prior to signing day. So far, this class gets a B- from me. It seems to me the bounce from last year should be more pronounced.
bpc5180
Well-Known Member
It's in the middle. Good news I'll say is Mac and company have been pretty good identifying talent early on and lightly regarded talent. Bad news is outside of Chav, we haven't landed any big players. I think we lack dynamic closers by 2/3's of our staff. That being said we recruit cleanly.
I expected more of a bump after winning the p12 south in recruiting. More than likely competing recruiters used the Tumpkin situation against us and the boards decision to hold off on approving Mac's extension looked bad. All in all though It really shouldn't be that hard to recruit on par or slightly below UCLA landing 5-6 4* players each season at a place like CU Boulder.
I expected more of a bump after winning the p12 south in recruiting. More than likely competing recruiters used the Tumpkin situation against us and the boards decision to hold off on approving Mac's extension looked bad. All in all though It really shouldn't be that hard to recruit on par or slightly below UCLA landing 5-6 4* players each season at a place like CU Boulder.
I go B-. Need to get better on the defensive line.
Fair points, but I just think if you look beyond the rivals rating some of the guys we had this time last year were far superior prospects to this year.
In particular, I'd say Lytle is a far better prospect than Stenstrom is (no offense to Blake, I like him a lot but Lytle had a couple year starting in the Trinity league compared to nothing in the CO HS realm). Culver is maybe on par with the OL dudes from last year, others aren't. WRs were better. None of our defensive guys jump out at me as on par with Miller (although I was super high on Miller).
I will say Smith is the best RB we've got in years. Really like him.
Swish
Half a bubble off
I probably believe in the star rating more than most here so I would have liked to see a couple of 4's or a 5. Good for perception as well. That being said, I think we really have some great kids that have given us verbals up to this point. A lot of potential and a lot to look forward to.
I've seen this sentiment a lot but I don't think it's all that accurate, Lytle had only seen action in 6 games when he had committed to us and most of his yards came against one team. He sat behind Travis Jonsen up until his JR year, and then was out for a decent chunk of his JR season and didn't see a lot of action in a couple of the games he did play. So actually Stenstrom had managed nearly as many combined rushing/passing yards as Lytle did as a Junior, and saw action in 28 games up to that point (sure, not a lot of action, but it adds up comparatively). The Trinity League is a different beast but overall that's not a huge sample size.
I mean you can think what you will of who the better prospect is, Lytle had the offers and hype but the argument about Stenstrom's inexperience compared to Lytle has always struck me as a bit unfair.
Last edited:
footballisit
Well-Known Member
Trinity League is a different beast. Lytle's offer list speak volumes about what coaches thought of his ability. QB's get recruited by other schools after they commit whether it is a firm commitment or not. It is still odd Blake does not have more knocking down his door with all of the recent Elite 11 publicity. I hope it picks up for CU recruiting purposes in season. I do feel Lytle was a bigger recruit and was still underrated due to injury his junior year. I hope Blake gets a 4th star as that will also help recruiting. A Trinity League player does face an inordinate amount of talent weekly which prepares them for college level play. I truly think at the end of the day both kids will be big time players for us regardless of their recruitment.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
The way we finished against UW and ISU, plus the coach abuse issue really hampered the growth that should of happened this recruiting season. So far at least. Win this fall and it'll pick up.
Good info, clearly my mind has deceived me as I didn't remember he was injured for most of his junior year and didn't even start as a sophomore.
Don't get me wrong on Stenstrom, I really do like him and I think he'll do fine this year, but it's hard to really say a guy that has never done anything but mop-up duty is an absolute top notch prospect.